An organism is natural biocomputer system or more correctly biorobot, especially animals, in view of the presence of sensory organs, muscles, etc. A cell is biochip. An organism has both hardware (constituted by chemical structures including DNA) and software, the nonphysical biosoftware or bioprogram (divine rooh or the so-called ‘soul’) stored on chromosomes, the hard disk of natural biocmputer (see my earlier post in Molecular Biology section ‘Life is nonmaterial phenomenon’ dt. 20-1-2012. I may also point out that there is some spelling mistake in the URL of my blog given there. The correct URL is http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com).

The creation of biological species (excepting man) by God can be explained as programmed phenomenon. It cannot be chance phenomenon of descent with modification driven by random mutation and natural selection as hypothesized in Darwin’s theory. There were no gradations either between any two organisms created by God. All of them are perfect biosystems. The process of creation of biological species can be explained based on the theory of programmed evolution in the light of the Quran (Wahid, P.A. 2005. Islam and Science 3(1): 7-42). It is briefly presented here.

The theory is founded on Quranic revelations and well-established cellular phenomena like cell-directed (programmed) biosoftware engineering mechanisms and natural demonstration of biosoftware differentiation processes (e.g., development of baby through execution of the bioprogram carried in the zygote). The term ‘biomeme’ is used to describe biological information stored as sectors on the chromosome. Biomeme is the smallest unit of biological information that can be transmitted from parent to offspring and that can take part in natural biosoftware engineering processes like cutting and splicing of chromosomal sectors, deletion, replication, translocation, crossing over (recombination), etc. These phenomena lead to alteration of the biosoftware (biological information) via rearrangement of the biomemetic sectors on the chromosome. All these processes, which biologists regard as random ‘errors’ or ‘mistakes’ are in fact bioprogram-driven functions to bring about the required alterations in bioinformation content stored on chromosomes, which reflect as sectional changes in chromosome organization.

Origin of biological information

The term ‘origin of life’ is a misnomer. A better description is ‘origin of biological information’. Everything in nature is governed by chemical or biological information (i.e., program). A baby with diverse tissues develop in mother’s womb through execution of the bioprogram stored on the chromosomes of zygote. This means a source of biological information is required for the development of baby. The evolution of baby is the reflection of sequential execution of the bioprogram carried in the zygote. In effect the execution leads to resolution of specific number of subprograms (carried in diverse tissues) from the original biosoftware stored in the zygote. The hardware (cell structure in a given tissue) is produced in accordance with the program carried in it to suit its functions.

In almost the same way, origin of species can also be theorized. To start with, there should be a primordial cell or biochip (PBC) similar to zygote. The PBC carried the required biological program (divine rooh) to create diverse microbioprograms through biosoftware engineering processes in accordance with the bioprogram. Each microbioprogram formed in the end represents a species. Species is thus comparable to tissue. The origin of PBC marked the origin of biological information. It is the origin of the cell (PBC) carrying the biological information (divine rooh) that can be described as origin of life. PBC is not an organism but a cell like zygote that served as the source of biological information.

How was PBC created on Earth? The Quran illustrates this phenomenon in the example of creation of Prophet Jesus Christ.

Prophet Jesus was created from a Word of God (God’s instructions or software, which is what we call ‘energy’, see post 2 at my blog http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com). “Behold! The angels said: “O Mary! Allah gives you glad news of a Word from Him. His name will be Easa (Jesus Christ), son of Mary, held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter and one of those nearest to Allah.” (Q. 3:45). The ‘Word’ (divine instructions) mentioned in the Quranic verse 3:45 is the rooh (biosoftware) to create Prophet Jesus Christ (Q. 19:16-22). “And remember Mary in this Book when she retreated from her family to a place in the east. She placed a screen (to separate herself) from them. Then We sent to her Our rooh (biosoftware of Prophet Jesus) and he (the angel through whom the rooh was sent) appeared to her as man in all respects. She said: “I seek refuge in Most Gracious (Allah) from you (i.e., the angel in human male form), if you fear Allah. He (i.e., the angel) said: “Indeed I am only a messenger from your Lord to gift to you a pure son.” She said: “How can I have a son as no man has (ever) touched me and I have not been an unchaste (woman)?” He (i.e., the angel) said: “It is like that. Your Lord says, “It is a simple thing for Me (Allah) and (We wish) to make him (i.e., her son Jesus) a sign to mankind and a Mercy from Us (Allah). It is a matter ordained.” So she conceived him (i.e., her son Jesus) and she retired with him to a remote place.” (Q. 19:16-22). From this verse, it is evident that the rooh (biological information) transmitted by God through the angel materialized in the genital organ of Virgin Mary as the zygote carrying the biosoftware of Prophet Jesus Christ. “And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her genital organ; and We breathed into it from Our rooh; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants).” (Q. 66:12). The entire phenomenon resembles teleportation event in which biological information transmitted by God materialized into a cell (zygote) carrying biosoftware (of Prophet Jesus Christ) in the genital tract of Mary.

Teleportation involves what is called “quantum entanglement”, a less understood concept of entwining two or more particles without physical contact. In 2004, physicists in Austria (Nature 429(6993):737. doi:10.1038/nature02608) and in the US independently demonstrated quantum teleportation with atoms for the first time [Nature 429 (6993):734. doi:10.1038/nature02570]. In 2006, Eugene Polzik and his team in Denmark, successfully conducted a teleportation experiment involving a microscopic atomic object containing thousands of billions of atoms [Nature 443(7111):557. doi:10.1038/nature05136]. They teleported the information to a distance of half a metre. For the first time, it involved teleportation between light and matter, two different objects. In effect, in a teleportation event, the information transmitted to a faraway place transforms into the corresponding material.

Programmed evolution of biological species from the PBC

The PBC or the first cell with biological information necessary for the creation of millions of species would have been formed on the earth by a teleportation event in the same way as the creation of zygote in Mary’s womb from the rooh sent by God. The PBC would have materialized in an aqueous milieu and it is in that aqueous medium all the species were created. “…We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?” (Q. 21:30). “And Allah created all animals from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills, for verily Allah has power over all things.” (Q. 24:45).

Development of a human individual from the zygote is natural demonstration of how the bioprogram stored in a cell differentiates to create diverse subprograms each representing a tissue. Creation of diverse species may be viewed as programmed evolution of diverse microbioprograms through differentiation (natural biosoftware engineering processes) of the bioinformation carried in the PBC. Each microbioprogram so created represented a species. This would have been achieved through stepwise operation of appropriate software engineering mechanisms involving cutting and splicing of chromosomal sectors, shuffling of the sectors, replication, deletion duplication, translocation, mitosis, etc., in accordance with the bioprogram carried in the PBC. Ultimately it produced cells each carrying a microbioprogram representing a species. With the evolution of end cells carrying diverse microbioprograms in the aqueous milieu, the creation of diverse species is effectively complete. The end cells would have been in the form of spores, seeds, eggs, which got dispersed over land and water areas subsequently. From these end cells, the first members of diverse species developed. The theory agrees well with natural evidence and it is explained based on scientifically well-established and known phenomena. For a detailed discussion, see post 6 and also posts 2 and 4 at my blog http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com

When will people realize that there is no science whatsoever in religous scriptures- be it the Quran, the Torah or the Bible! At the time these texts were written (by ordinary people!), science as we know it now was practically nonexistent (back then, a rainbow was a miracle...). You will hardly find any serious scientific contributions in texts older than ~300-400 years.

So, interpreting religous texts in a pseudoscientifc language doesn`t make them a bit truer. Not to be misunderstood- everybody is free to belief in a supernatural entity and to find salvation in religion- no doubt about that. But, please, keep science out of it...

The theory of programmed evolution of biological species, which I posted, is scientific. We should not call a theory unscientific just because it is based on Scripture. Such judgement is unscientific. That is the kind of approach adopted blindly by atheists. Our criterion for judgement should be whether it can be scientifically proved. We are truth seekers; that is why we conduct studies through scientific means. There are a wide variety of information ranging from hypothesis to truth. Every one of us considers science as truth because we are able to develop technologies with the help of science. So science must be truth; otherwise technologies will not result. This is one hundred per cent correct. But we should not at the same time forget that there are several areas (e.g., origins) in science, which do not contribute to the development of any technology. The veracity or truth of theories developed in these areas can only be judged by assessing their agreement with Nature. What is meant by truth? “Truth” in science is any information that agrees with natural rules and laws. A theory is false if it does not agree with Nature. Nature is the “reference standard” for confirming the truth of an information. Scientific experiments we conduct do exactly that. Once confirmed, it becomes truth. Unfortunately, what we consider as ‘science’ is not entirely what is confirmed through scientific studies. Whatever journals publish including the unconfirmed information constitute modern science. Obviously, we find several theories as controversial. Any number of theories belonging to the controversial category can be cited. For instance, consider the section discussing the theories of origin of life at this website. We find dozens of theories proposed. Going by Pallazo’s criterion all these are scientific theories because none of them is based on Scripture. If you examine these theories, you will find none of them can be considered as theory of origin of life for the simple reason they do not suggest how life originated. They all stay in the non-life domain. There is also no suggestion in any of those theories that can be tested or falsified. Neither the scientists who proposed those ideas nor the publishers believe any of those theories is true. But yet they are published. Just because they are published in journals we accept them as scientific! Every one of us can propose ideas of that kind. But it should not be mere ideas which we should consider as science. Scientifically proven truths alone should be considered as science.

Pallazzo’s comment does not expose the scientific inadequacies of my theory but your point is, since it is based on Scripture, it is not true! Instead, Pallazzo should have examined the theory in the light of scientific facts and judge its merit. The theory of programmed evolution of species is grounded on natural evidence and scientific findings. Although I have given the link to my blog where the theory is discussed in detail, it appears Pallazzo has not read my post there. The theory is based on the following scientific facts:

a) It states that source of biological information is a pre-requisite for the evolution of biodiversity. The natural evidence is that a baby is developed from the zygote through differentiation of the biosoftware stored on the chromosomes of the zygote. The PBC suggested in the theory of programmed evolution of species is comparable to the zygote.

b) Darwin’s theory of evolution and its modern variants (e.g., neo-Darwinism, synthetic theory, etc.) do not indicate the source of biological information required to create the novel structures and functions in the evolving species. Evolutionists assume instead that the required information comes from thin air through random mutation. The results of several studies show that this assumption is wrong. It has been shown experimentally that mutation is cell-induced phenomenon meaning that changes in DNA take place based on the information carried in the cell itself. This also supports my proposal that biological information (biosoftware) exists as stored information and not as information encoded by any chemical structure (e.g., DNA). Please see post 5 at my blog. Unfortunately, scientists do not accept this well-founded fact, which anyone can repeat in his/her lab, perhaps for fear of recognizing its divine origin!

c) Living systems show existence of biosoftware engineering processes that operate in their cells in accordance with the bioprogram carried in them. This also proves that biological program exists independently of DNA. These processes are treated as errors and mistakes by scientists. An organism is natural biocomputer (see my post ‘Life is nonmaterial phenomenon’ in Molecular Biology section of this website). A computer cannot do anything by ‘mistake’; it can only operate as programmed. In meiosis, crossing over takes place in accordance with the biosoftware stored in the cell and it produces viable gametes. It is the natural biosoftware engineering mechanism (shuffling of chromosome portions) that is suggested in the programmed evolution of species, as responsible for creating new chromosome organizations and hence new bioinformation content. It predicts the occurrence of identical chromosome portions (say, identical DNA segments) in the evolved species. This is a well-established fact. In fact the concept of horizontal gene transfer is based on the observation of identical DNA segments on the chromosomes of the diverse species. This natural evidence validates the proposed theory of programmed evolution but it goes against Darwin’s theory.

If Pallazzo can find out on scientific ground any flaw or inadequacy in the theory proposed, please do report. Let us discuss it scientifically.

Pallazzo has quoted the above statement from my post at my blog. OK. Now let us examine why I say molecular gene concept is wrong. The concept is violation of chemical fundamentals. First let us examine the concept assuming it is correct. a) Take the case of a zygote. It carries biological program which is supposed to be the genome. Genome is a large chemical molecule. If it encodes biological information, that information should be specific to that chemical structure like any chemical properties of that molecule. During development, the zygote divides mitotically handing down the same genome to the daughter cells. Ultimately tissues are formed. These tissues are structurally and functionally different from one another except for the genome. Genome is supposed to be identical in every cell of the body. (This is what we teach our students from school level to Ph.D). Human body consists of trillions of cells. In all these cells genome is identical. This means each cell should carry identical biological information. That being the case, how can there be variations in cell structures and functions among different tissues? If mitosis generates identical genomes (i.e., identical genetic information), how variation in cell structure and function can originate?

Now let us examine the other side of the argument. These variations among tissues indicate genomes in the tissues are not identical. This has been scientifically proved recently [Gottlieb et al., “BAK1 gene variation and abdominal aortic aneurysms”, Human Mutation Vol. 30, 2009, pp. 1043. DOI: 10.1002/humu.21046]. This means genome is also changing like any other structure in the cell during mitosis clearly showing biological program is not encoded by the genome but it exists independently of any chemical structures in the cell. And it is that biosoftware, which is directing the production of cell structures (including genome) appropriate for the functions of the tissues concerned. It is impossible for a chemical molecule to change itself and change its properties and functions. b) The discovery that genome is not identical in the body tissues calls into question every other claim like clone, personal genome, etc., to cite but a few.

c) Biological program comes into operation with the formation of zygote. The sequential execution of the instructions in the program is reflected in the evolution (development) of the individual and every other biological activity until death. How can a constant genome structure encode information that varies with time?

d) At the time death occurs biological functioning of the body comes to a halt in spite of the fact the genome is intact. A dead cell (unicellular organism) or a dead body is materially identical to its living counterpart before death occurred. How can the cell or the body cells stop functioning with every material including genome intact? Is it possible for a chemical molecule to lose its property – in this case biological program encoded by the genome?

There are several such anomalies or more correctly violation of chemical fundamentals associated with the material gene concept. The Scriptural revelation of nonmaterial ‘soul’ (biosoftware) is therefore correct. The soul is the nonmaterial biosoftware stored on chromosome like the nonmaterial software stored on the hard disk of computer. The Quran also informs that it is removal (deletion) of the soul that results in death. A dead body is like a computer without software. This revelation predicts that all the experiments to create life from nonlife (material) without involving a living cell or organism will fail. It also predicts it will be impossible to restore the life of a dead cell or dead body through chemical means. The Quranic revelation is therefore falsifiable and hence as good as scientific theory. We cannot refute that. If our on-going efforts to chemically synthesize (without involving living cell or organism) succeed in creating life from nonlife, that will invalidate the Quranic revelation and God. But if the attempts fail, it will be confirmation of the divinity of the Quran and God’s existence. What I have proposed is a falsifiable theory. In the true scientific tradition, so long as a falsifiable theory remains unproven, it should be accepted as correct. Therefore, as it stands today, God exists because till date all our attempts to create life from chemicals have failed. Maybe, God is proving to us His existence scientifically. Indeed biologists are poised to prove God. It will not be too long before they realize that life cannot be created from nonlife or a dead cell cannot be restored to life. That will compel biologists to reject the molecular gene concept. That will be the ultimate scientific confirmation of God. This is destined to happen. Biologists can only delay it but cannot stop it. I hope Pallazzo can now understand that the entire discussion of the Quranic revelation is strictly on scientific basis.

Yea, Astra Sequi. From my post itself one can understand that the theory of programmed evolution of species proposed by me is scientific. An assertion is scientific if its validity can be tested or it can be disproved (falsified). This is the criterion Karl Popper introduced and universally applied in science to distinguish between scientific theory and pseudoscientific theory. If the assertion is falsifiable it is scientific theory. The theory I proposed is falsifiable. Further there is ample natural evidence that supports my theory. Let me explain this further in comparison with Darwin’s theory.

Darwin’s idea of origin of species can be considered a scientific theory because it yields certain falsifiable predictions. It is not because Darwin proved it in 1859 when he published his book ‘Origin of Species’. The predictions can be tested and through that, it will either be proved or disproved. If the predictions fail, the theory is not scientifically valid and has to be rejected. If predictions proved correct, the theory becomes a scientific fact. Darwin’s theory is not scientific fact because its predictions have failed. Hence it is not even a scientific theory now. Now let us examine this aspect.

Darwin stated in his book (The Origin of Species. Bantam Books, New York, 1999): “…the number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.” [p. 231]. “Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains…” [p. 149-150]. This is a prediction of his theory. Since his theory gives predictions, it becomes a scientific theory. Now the validity of his theory is testable based on this prediction. If the prediction is found true, his theory will be proved. If the prediction fails, his theory gets falsified or proved wrong. Now let us see whether the prediction of his theory is correct or not. Darwin says if his theory is true, innumerable intermediate forms should be present in the fossil record. Are there intermediate forms? No. The fossil record did not live up to Darwin’s expectations. It is barren for transitional forms. Darwin’s reaction to the absence of intermediate forms is: “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” [p. 230]. What we should note is that Darwin who proposed the theory of evolution, himself says there are no intermediate forms. Since there are no intermediate forms, the prediction of the theory has failed. That means the theory is wrong and to be rejected.

Another thing to be noted is that in order to give credibility to the theory, Darwin described the fossil remains imperfect! No scientist would have called natural evidence imperfect if his theory does not agree with it. Take a hypothetic case. Suppose if Newton’s theory had predicted a reddish sky instead of blue, and Newton explained that the sky should have been reddish, who will accept his theory and the explanation? None. But instead of rejecting Darwin’s theory, evolutionists promote it! We should bear in mind one thing that Darwin knew even before writing his book that there were no gradations in the geologic record. What scientists normally do is they will not even consider it as evidence or they will change their theory to suit the natural evidence. It is Darwin’s theory and not nature that required intermediate forms. In other words, if Darwin’s theory had not predicted intermediate forms, no evolutionist would have doubted or even imagined that fossil record is imperfect. Nobody would have started work to find out the intermediate forms or why it is imperfect!

Transitional forms are the backbone of his theory. The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record thus prompted Darwin to state: “He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation.” [pp. 279-280]. To call nature’s archive of biological history as imperfect for the simple reason that it does not agree with one’s idea is something unheard of and unthinkable in science.

There is another card Darwin had played to distract our attention from this failed prediction. Consider this statement of his. “It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working ….” In other words, evolution is a non-stop phenomenon. It was here, it is here and it will be here forever. If evolution is a continuous phenomenon, the intermediate forms should be seen at every point of time in the earth’s history and not confined to early history and fossil record. But Darwin cleverly directed our attention to the geologic record. If evolution is taking place now, we should see those innumerable intermediate forms predicted by his theory in the extant biological diversity also. Among the two million or so recorded species, not one of them has been identified by taxonomists as intermediate form; all of them have been described as perfect species clearly indicating that transitional forms as predicted by Darwin’s theory do not occur in nature. The absence of intermediate forms in the existing biodiversity, besides the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, is confirmatory evidence against Darwin’s theory. Against this background, we may examine the scientific basis of the programmed evolutionary theory proposed by me.

The theory is based on the nonmaterial biological information as inferred from the Quranic revelation (see my post ‘Life is nonmaterial phenomenon’ under Molecular Biology at this website); Quranic revelation of creation of organisms from water; scientific discovery of cell-directed changes in DNA implying biological program exists independently of any chemical structure; evolution of structurally (including DNA) and functionally different tissues indicating differences in the biological information carried by them, which is also supported by the discovery of variations in the genomes of different tissues of the body; nature’s demonstration of the necessity of a parent source of biological information (carried in zygote) to create tissues with different bioinformation content, etc. form the supporting evidence for the proposed theory. Besides these evidences, the theory also yields predictions. Hence its validity can also be tested. Since the basis of the theory is nonmaterial biological information, it follows that if it can be shown that life can be produced chemically without using living cell or organisms in the process, it will invalidate or falsify my theory. Another method to falsify the theory is by restoring life to a dead cell or organism purely by chemical means. In fact, failure of each attempt now going on in various institutes to create life from nonlife is proving life is not material (DNA) phenomenon and hence it proves the theory of programmed evolution is scientifically correct as of today.

...You did not answer my questions. Furthermore, only your first and last paragraphs actually addressed the topic I was asking about.

Falsifiability only means that that we are able to apply the scientific method - it does not mean that the process of science stops there. It is possible to produce a falsifiable theory in an unscientific way. If I said that there was a china teapot buried on the dark side of the Moon, that is a falsifiable statement, but you still have no reason to believe me.

Also, the successful theories generate thousands of predictions in different circumstances, not just a handful. Otherwise, you are not talking about a theory but rather a hypothesis.

We also tend to require some positive predictions (of the "This will happen" variety rather than "This will not happen"), and for at least some of these to have verifiably occurred.

I have indicated that whatever scientific evidence and falsifiable predictions one wants to call an assertion as scientific theory are there in my posts at this website and at my blog whose link I have given. It appears you want those evidences and predictions enumerated here. Before I do that, let me point out a couple of things you mentioned in your reply which I cannot agree.

a) “It is possible to produce a falsifiable theory in an unscientific way. If I said that there was a china teapot buried on the dark side of the Moon, that is a falsifiable statement, but you still have no reason to believe me.” This is neither scientific evidence-based statement nor the one that yields predictions. We generally go for falsifiable predictions if a hypothesis is not directly testable. The example you have given belongs to that category. It is neither directly testable nor does it leave any testable (falsifiable) prediction. You do not have to bring the teapot-moon example for this. All the theories of origin of life advanced in biology belong to that kind. None of them is scientific theory though they all pass as scientific theories! b) “Also, the successful theories generate thousands of predictions in different circumstances, not just a handful. Otherwise, you are not talking about a theory but rather a hypothesis.” When we say a theory is successful, it means it has already been proved either directly or through successful predictions. It is no longer a hypothesis or just scientific theory; it is now a ‘scientific fact’. If a theory is correct, its predictions will also be proved. If any of its predictions is found invalid, then the theory should be modified accordingly. Had such modifications been made in Darwin’s theory, the theory would not have existed now. c) "This will happen" variety rather than "This will not happen". There is no such distinction in science. Either way it is acceptable because if it is “This will happen” for a theory, it will be "This will not happen" for its rival theory. For example, big bang theory predicted a beginning for the universe, which implied it was created (by God). So there were several deliberate attempts to counter it by developing an alternate theory that did not imply a beginning for the universe (see Stephen Hawking’s book “A Brief History of Time”). The theory that received attention was steady state theory. It implied no beginning for the universe. Both these theories are not directly testable. However, they are called scientific theories because they yielded testable or falsifiable predictions. Now if the predictions of big bang theory are proved correct, it belongs to "This will happen" variety as far as that theory is concerned. However as far as the steady state theory is concerned, it is “This will not happen” variety. Today, the predictions of big bang theory have been proven, while steady state theory, which implies the universe was not created and hence no God, remains unproven.

Now coming to your doubts regarding my theory, I have the following scientific or natural evidences and falsifiable predictions. These have already been given in my posts here and at my blog posts.

1) The theory of programmed evolution requires the availability of a parent source of biological information from which diverse microbioprograms (each representing a species) evolved. The theory in fact focuses on the resolution of millions of biosoftware programs through partitioning and differentiation of a common pool of information. This is well based on the natural and scientific evidence of resolution of several biosoftware programs (each representing a tissue) from a common pool of information stored on the chromosomes of zygote. Thus it is naturally and scientifically evident that different biosoftware packages can evolve through differentiation and portioning of a common pool of biological information.

This would also mean that programmed evolution of species does not depend on random mutations on which Darwin’s theory is based. The discovery of cell-directed mutagenesis, which indirectly proves new program has come into operation as observed in several situation especially when the organism faces environmental stress, disease, etc. validates this aspect of the theory. For example cell-directed changes in DNA reported under stressed environmental conditions or resistance development against diseases or pesticides are the required changes brought about in hardware (DNA) to execute the program concerned.

2) My theory is based on the Quranic revelation that biosoftware (soul) is the cause of life and it is nonmaterial. This means that modern molecular gene (genome) concept is wrong. This forms a falsifiable prediction of my theory. Now a lot of studies are going on in various institutions and universities around the world to create life from nonlife. These attempts are made based on the belief that it is a material (genetic program encoded by DNA molecule) that confers life to an organism. Modern biology therefore considers a living organism as no more than a bundle of chemical molecules and there is nothing non-material in a living being. Thus the molecular gene (genome) predicts life can be created from pure chemicals (nonlife). This is also the basis of all the theories of origin of life (excepting panspermia, which is not strictly a theory of origin of life). That life is material phenomenon is a foregone conclusion by the scientific community. This belief is however falsifiable. The experiments to create life from nonlife (materials) without involving a living cell or organism, in fact, also test the validity of this belief (prediction) although scientists may not admit it. The failure of these experiments is one of the predictions of the Quranic revelation of nonmaterial biosoftware. Therefore, if the experiments fail, it will prove Quranic revelation is correct and disprove molecular gene (genome) concept. If the experiments are successful, it will prove molecular gene (genome) concept is correct and Quranic revelation is wrong.

3) The theory of programmed evolution assumes that partitioning and differentiation of the original pool of biological information (natural biosoftware engineering processes such as deletion, duplication, translocation, cutting and splicing, crossing over, cell division, etc., etc.) led to the evolution of diverse microbioprograms (each representing a species) in the end cells from which the first members of the species developed. This prediction can be tested as follows. Since biosoftware is stored on the chromosomes as biomemetic sectors (like the sectors of hard disk in computer, see post 4 at my blog), biosoftware engineering processes to create new bioinformation content on the chromosome would result in shuffling of chromosome portions. This will in turn reflect in the presence of identical chromosome portions in the chromosomes of the evolved species. It has been proved beyond doubt that this phenomenon has happened during evolution of species. The presence of identical DNA segments, which represent chromosome portions, in different species has been well documented in biology literature. The horizontal gene (DNA) transfer (HGT) observed is a reflection of biosoftware engineering processes taken place during programmed evolution of the species. HGT therefore validates my theory (this is a positive prediction). At the same time, it is against the predictions of Darwin’s theory. ‘Descent with modification’ implied by Darwin’s theory predicts only vertical descent. That is, the evolutionary tree should show only vertical descent. The existence of HGT questions Darwin’s theory. It is impossible to accommodate HGT in evolutionary tree based on ‘descent with modification’ concept, although several explanations for HGT are in circulation. The evolutionary tree is now under scanner. That is another blow to Darwin’s theory. Another prediction of the theory has fallen.

4) Another (positive) prediction of the theory of programmed evolution is that all the species evolved will be in perfect condition and there will be no gradations (intermediate forms) between any two species. This prediction is proven by the absence of intermediate or transition forms in the fossil record as well as in the extant biological diversity.

5) The theory does not view that life originated as emergent phenomenon through chance encounters between molecules. Instead it views origin of life as origin of biological information on Earth as the result of divine transmission (based on Quranic revelation of similar events). The phenomenon has been scientifically explained on the lines of teleportation. What once Einstein described as ‘spooky action at a distance’ has now been demonstrated experimentally through teleportation phenomenon. It suggests the possibility of materialization of transmitted information. Every aspect of the theory proposed by me is scientifically founded.

The final confirmatory scientific proof of creation through programmed evolution will come in the form of failure of experiments to create life from nonlife. So far all the experiments have failed validating my theory. More failures in future will further confirm the truth. It will also prove scientifically the divinity of the Quran and existence of God. We should be open-minded, unprejudiced and without any pre-conceived notions. We should not hesitate to accept the truth.

I think I have made clear the scientific basis and validity of my theory, success of its predictions, etc. If AstraSequi has any further doubt in his regard please spell it out clearly. Please also let me know whether you now think my theory is scientific? If not, why?

I can't evaluate whether or not your theory/hypothesis is scientific - or its degree of correctness, which is a separate matter - because you haven't answered my questions.

Where have you applied the scientific method?

What null hypothesis have you used?

What verifiable evidence distinguishes your model from the null?

Any scientific theory finds it completely trivial to supply these answers. If you can't do that or don't understand the questions, there's nothing wrong with that; it just means that some part of your thinking process is unscientific.

I have told you to point out the aspect(s) of my theory that you feel not scientific by your standards and also give reason why it is not scientific. You see my previous reply in which I have considered your answers one by one (a, b and c) and exposed to you why your understanding of scientific methods and criteria used in judging the scientific merit of a theory are vague and not correct. Likewise you take my points (1 to 5 given above) one by one, examine them individually and give scientific reason(s) for each why it is wrong or not scientific. Without doing that, you are repeating the same questions. Why can’t you understand my theory is suggesting that all the organisms are products of creation by God through programmed evolution and not the products of chance evolution? That is the null hypothesis you are talking about.

You state: “I can’t evaluate whether or not your theory/hypothesis is scientific – or its degree of correctness, which is a separate matter – because you haven’t answered my questions”. If the 5 aspects and their scientific basis do not answer your questions, and from which you cannot judge whether my theory is scientific or not, I have no more explanations. Sorry.

You're saying that your theory is the null hypothesis? That would mean that if nobody proves you wrong, you are right. That is not how a null works.

If I say there is a teapot buried on the dark side of the Moon - I think it's fairly clear that this "theory" predicts that if you go to the Moon and dig around for a few centuries, you will eventually find a teapot. If the entire Moon is turned inside out and no teapot is found, the theory will have been falsified. The point is that falsifiability is only a minimal criterion for something to be called scientific.

I was hoping to evaluate your theory for certain necessary qualifications, which you have not provided. I do not have that much free time to spend, so I let your other points be. You may choose to interpret that as you will. If you have reasonable questions, I do not mind trying to teach someone who asks (send me a PM, or start a new topic), but otherwise I do not wish to post in this thread again.